Friday, February 18, 2005

North Korea Radio transcript puzzles analysts andwatchers and these S K press articles describe thevarious and hectic channels of communication.

JjL

Quotes :

A transcript obtained by the JoongAng Ilbo of a Mondaybroadcast by a state-run North Korean radio stationappears to contradict Pyongyangâ€™s claim last week thatthe regime has nuclear weapons. But its meaning was notentirely clear, and experts were divided over whatsignificance it had, if any. The newspaper obtained atranscript of a Monday broadcast by a state-run radiostation which, on Feb. 10, had broadcast the regime'sannouncement that it had nuclear weapons.

The Monday transcript included this statement: "TheUnited States, which has been intoxicated with victoriesin invasion wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has designatedour republic, which it called part of an axis of evil,as the next target to attack, while circulating theoriesof nuclear and missile threats that we are not inpossession of." Asked to comment on this statement _which, though somewhat ambiguous in the original Korean,seems to assert that the regime is "not in possession"of "nuclear and missile threats" _ some observerssuggested that the apparent discrepancy may suggestconflict within the North's power elite.

But intelligence officers point out that there have beenno other signs of such a conflict in recent days. JunBong-geun, director of the private Institute for Peaceand Cooperation, called the apparent discrepancy hard tounderstand, given the North Korean regime's absolutecontrol over the media. "It could be that there was amiscommunication between the foreign ministry and thestate media," said Mr. Jun.(Source: Joong Ang Ilbo; Lee Young-jong, Brian Lee)

South Koreans Unfazed by Nuke Threat from North

A majority of South Koreans are unconcerned by NorthKoreaâ€™s Feb. 10 announcement that it has nuclearweapons.

In a public opinion poll conducted Tuesday by TNS Koreaat the request of the Korea Society Opinion Institute(KSOI) on 700 adult men and women nationwide, 58.9percent of respondents said they felt no insecurityfollowing North Korea's recent declaration.

KSOI said that among those under 40, the highly educatedand white collar workers, levels of insecurity were verylow, while for over-50s, the less educated and lowincome earners, feelings of insecurity were acute.

Asked about a solution to the nuclear issue, 74.7percent responded that Seoul needed to send a specialenvoy to Pyongyang or hold an intra-Korean summit andpersuade the North to give up its nuclear weapons.Another 22.8 percent said pressure like the freezingintra-Korean economic cooperation or sanctions wasneeded.

Hesitating again! And still jammed at another crucialcrossroad of its history, Japan claims the right tobecome a permanent member of the Security Council of theUnited Nations after Tokyo's contribution to recent PKOand ODA assistance to various nations at levels that didnot reach the high amount engaged per capita by othernations.

Re-engaged since 1985 on a nationalistic path, thearchipelago drew attention from its neighbors andfurther, especially from East asian nations, China andKorean peninsula, all of them wondering, puzzled by thissudden Japan's commitment to international peace. Manyquestioned the honesty of the development beyond whatappears to be as mere diplomatic rhetoric to gain a freehand on world affairs without the morality code ofconduct and appropriate humanism.

One of the first example to attest of the trueintentions of the Japanese society is to look back atwhat happened at the celebrations of the 50thanniversary after World War II, after the defeat of theJapan Imperial army and its supporters the extremistssupported by the Zaibatsu.

Today's gesture of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumibowing to the altar of the Yasukuni sanctuary where Aclass war criminals are spiritually enshrined does notdesinfatuate the vigorous speculations surroundingtoday's Japan re armament and total lack of apologiesfor the years of invasion, crimes, misery and brutalitythat its population and leaders perpetuated during halfa century. Has Japan address its war responsibilityapologized, compensated, rebuilt and gained the soundand fair confidence of the world community? Or hasJapan launched an unapologetic attempt to white washJapanese war crimes and paint the Tokyo Tribunal asretribution of the victorious? These questions are tobe thoroughly studied.

One document to help to substantiate this major pointcomes from the Murayama's apology from 1995. Was itapologetic or opportunistic? Here is the book of eventsas analyzed by Pulitzer Price winner MIT Professor JohnDower :

Joel J. Legendre Journalist, columnist, lecturer.Tokyo

1 ) Introduction

Japan's former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayamaapologized August 15, 1995 to the victims of Japan'saggressive war. His apology should be welcome.

However, as already been pointed out, his apology wasonly a personal one. His feelings were obviously notshared by the majority of his colleagues in the Japanesegovernment. He failed to make a formal and officialapology in the so-called No War Resolution. Only 26% ofthe diet members supported the Resolution and 47% wereagainst it.

Furthermore, the ex-education minister Seisuke Okunomanaged to organize a national campaign and collected4.5 million signatures against the Resolution.

For those who have been struggling for a genuinereconciliation between Japan and its neighbouringcountries, their battle is not over yet, they say.

Parliament adopted no war resolution in opposition'sabsence.

II ) Analysis by Professor John Dower

Japan Addresses Its War Responsibility

By John W. Dower

John W. Dower is professor of history and Henry Luceprofessor of international cooperation at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.

In Japan as in the United States, the 50th anniversaryof World War II in Asia has provoked highly emotionalpolitical and ideological debates. For the Americanpublic, this surfaced most conspicuously in a bittercontroversy over how the Smithsonian Institution's Airand Space Museum should commemorate the use of atomicbombs and end of the Pacific War. The Japanesecounterpart to this controversy focused on thegovernment's appropriate political response to ahorrendous conflict for which, in the eyes of the restof the world, Imperial Japan bore immenseresponsibility.

Contrary to much media commentary in the United States,the issue of Japanese "war responsibility" has beenquite widely debated within Japan itself for many years.These debates intensified following the death of EmperorHirohito in 1989, and came to a head in June of thisyear with the passage by the lower house of the Diet(Japan's bicameral parliament) of a resolutionexpressing "deep remorse" for Japan's wartime actions.International and domestic criticism of thisconspicuously qualified resolution was partiallymeliorated by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama'sstatement of August 15, in which he expressed his"heartfelt apology" for the damage and suffering causedby Imperial Japan. The documents that follow hereconvey a sense of the gamut of positions taken on thisdivisive and volatile issue.

Document 1 is the Diet's own "unofficial" translation ofthe resolution passed in the House of Representatives,amidst great discord, on June 9. This transparentlycompromised statement reflects the politically polyglotnature of the coalition government presiding over Japan.Originally introduced as a relatively strong apology forJapan's wartime transgressions by the Social DemocraticParty to which Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama belongs,the resolution was drastically watered down by the primeminister's conservative coalition partners, most notablythe Liberal Democratic Party that governed Japan from1955 to 1993.

The final vote on the resolution in the lower houseamply suggests the political tumult that has accompaniedthis issue. Of 502 representatives (nine seats in theHouse are presently vacant), only 251 actuallyparticipated in the vote, of whom 230 supported theresolution. Opposition votes included fourteen membersof the Japan Communist Party, who desired a muchstronger statement of Japan's war responsibility. Some241 members of the House abstained from voting,including 70 representatives who were affiliated withone of the three parties in the shaky ruling coalitioncabinet that sponsored the resolution. Over 50 of thesedissenting coalition members belonged to theconservative Liberal Democratic Party; they felt thatthe resolution still went too far. On the other hand,fourteen Socialists abstained on the grounds that it didnot go far enough. The greatest number of abstainingrepresentatives (141) belonged to the Shinshinto (NewFrontier Party), at least some of whose members desireda stronger statement. A few members of the House werenot present for reasons having nothing to do with theresolution per se.

The resolution as passed contains several conspicuousfeatures. Japanese colonialism and aggression is placedin the larger context of "modern" colonialism andaggression by other powers (implicitly "the West"). Theword "apology" (shazai or owabi) is conspicuously absentfrom the final statement. And the "deep remorse" (fukaihansei) expressed for the suffering Imperial Japancaused other peoples is explicitly identified asreferring primarily to Japan's Asian neighbors.

Document 2 is a concise expression of conservativeopposition to any unqualified acknowledgment of andapology for Japanese war behavior. This was circulatednationwide as a petition beginning around February 1995,and its sponsors - an ad hoc "Citizenâ€™s MovementCommittee on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the End of theWar" - claimed to ultimately have collected some fivemillion supporting signatures.

The petition conveys two sentiments that loom large inall conservative arguments: (1) resistance to anystatement suggesting Japan has been a uniquelyaggressive nation in the modern world (and, with this,implicit resentment at the perceived double standards ofnations and peoples who criticize Japan withoutacknowledging their own imperialist histories andoccasionally atrocious behaviors); and (2) deeppatriotic concern that unqualified condemnation ofJapan's role in the China and Pacific wars blasphemesthe memory of approximately 2 million Japanese "heroes"(eirei) who bravely and loyally gave their lives fortheir country.

Apart from visceral patriotism, this conservativeanxiety also rests on eminently practical concerns. Inspeaking of the "one- sided" resolution as a source oftrouble for the future, the petition obliquely evokesthe spectre of both declining nationalism and foreignlawsuits. Unqualified self-criticism of Japan'sobjectives and behavior in the war, it is feared, willundermine the patriotism of future generations. At thesame time, an official acknowledgment of responsibilityfor causing suffering to the nationals of othercountries could well become the basis for lawsuits byany number of surviving victims of Imperial Japan's warmachine (women forced into sexual slavery, individualssuch as Koreans who were conscripted for forced labor,victims of military atrocities, abused Allied POWs,etc.). Demands for individual compensation orreparations for such foreigners already have emergedboth from abroad and (as seen in Document 6) from withinJapan itself.

Document 3, an editorial from the Sankei newspaper onJune 10, condemning the Diet resolution, conveys theconservative position in greater detail. Much likeAmerican conservatives who attacked those who criticizedthe use the atomic bombs as being doctrinaire"anti-American" leftists, the Sankei tars the Socialistsand other Japanese who condemn Japan's war behaviorwithout qualification, and who generally trace Japaneseaggression back to the first Sino-Japanese war in themid- 1890s, for embracing an "anti-national" or"anti-Japanese" (hankokumin) ideology.

More striking - and probably more surprising to mostnon- Japanese - the Sankei editorial also reflects abasic line of attack that conservatives in generaldirected against the Diet resolution: the argument thatit contravened the very essence of parliamentarydemocracy to issue a dogmatic statement purporting toreflect the viewpoint of the people as a whole. Thisgives an interesting twist to the domestic debate, inthat those who espouse the most "conservative" positionconcerning Japan's war responsibility have found itexpedient to do so by presenting themselves as championsof a truly pluralistic "democracy."

Document 4, a critique of the Diet resolution from theJune 8 issue of Akahata, the newspaper of the JapanCommunist Party, provides a fair sample of the left-wingposition concerning Japan's war responsibility. This isan argument elaborated in great detail, and with manynuances, in a large body of Japanese historical writingon World War II in Asia, where Marxist and neo-Marxistperspectives have been conspicuous ever since Japan'sdefeat in 1945. Ironically, the critique of Japaneseimperialism and aggression by Japanese Marxists probablymost closely approximates the unqualified condemnationof Japanese aggression espoused by non-Japaneseanti-Marxists.

Although not addressed to the Diet resolution per se,Document 5 provides an excellent example of the mannerin which progressive Japanese scholars attempted to usethe fiftieth anniversary of the war to, first,acknowledge Japan's own deep war responsibility inspecific terms; and then, second, speak to the largerissues of war and peace in general. This appeal,originally drafted by over thirty academics in March1995, was one of the few attempts worldwide to transcendnational fixations and mobilize international opinion onthese matters. Signatures were solicited from scholarsthroughout both Asia and the West.

Document 6, dated June 30 and signed by 137 generallywell-known academics and public figures, provides asample of liberal and left-wing citizen's movementswhich not only call for frank acknowledgment of Japan'sspecific war crimes, but also demand compensation or"reparations" for the individual victims of thesedepredations. Like most such Japanese pronouncements,whether from the left or right of the politicalspectrum, the focus is on Japan's Asian victims. Inrecent years, particularly after the issue of Asianwomen forced to serve as sexual "comfort women" (ianfu)for the Imperial forces became widely publicized inJapan, popular support for such compensation has beensubstantial. A poll conducted earlier this year, forexample, found the remarkably high number of 80 percentof respondents in favor of such material acknowledgmentof Japan's war responsibility (see, for example, the NewYork Times of March 6, 1995).

Document 7, the prime minister's statement on thefiftieth anniversary of Japan's capitulation, was widelyheralded abroad as the country's "first" clear andexplicit apology for Imperial Japan's colonial rule andaggressive acts. The key phrase is the expression offeelings of "profound remorse" (tsusetsu na hansei) and"heartfelt apology" (kokoro kara no owabi), mostparticularly the latter phrase. There is no doubt thatthis is a document of historical importance, and will bewidely cited in the future. It is not, however, anunprecedented statement. Two years previously, onAugust 23, 1993, the then prime minister MorihiroHosokawa made a similar albeit terser statement beforethe Diet expressing "deep remorse and apology" (fukaihansei to owabi) for these same acts.

Whatever one may make of these individual statements inand of themselves, viewed together they convey animpression of serious domestic engagement withfundamental issues concerning Japan's past, present andfuture. This is not the impression we usually get fromthe U.S. media, with its rather formulaic andmonolithic fixation on "the Japanese" and their"historical amnesia." As these documents also suggest,this highly emotional debate obviously transcends the50th anniversary year. It is predictable that it willcontinue for many years to come - and predictable alsothat there never will be unanimity within Japan on thequestion of war responsibility.

Document 1

Resolution to Renew the Determination for Peace on theBasis of Lessons Learned from History

June 9, 1995

(Unofficial translation by the Secretariat of the JapanHouse of Representatives)

The House of Representatives resolves as follows:

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end ofWorld War II, this House offers its sincere condolencesto those who fell in action of wars and similar actionsall over the world.

Solemnly reflecting upon many instances of colonial ruleand acts of aggression in the modern history of theworld, and recognizing that Japan carried out those actsin the past, inflicting pain and suffering upon thepeoples of other countries, especially in Asia, theMembers of this House express a sense of deep remorse.

We must transcend differences over historical views ofthe past war and learn humbly the lessons of history soas to build a peaceful international society.

This House expresses its resolve, under the banner ofeternal peace enshrined in the Constitution of Japan, tojoin hands with other nations of the world and to pavethe way to a future that allows all human beings to livetogether.

Return to article

Document 2

A Petition to Oppose the "Diet Resolution of Remorse andApology" that One-Sidedly Condemns Our Country's War.

(Translated by Tomomi Yamaguchi)

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary (Heisei 7[1995]) of the end of the War, there are plans for aDiet resolution that one-sidedly condemns our countryfor the war and expresses our "remorse" and "apology" tothe relevant nations.

Such a resolution means that, as an expression of ournation's will, we declare domestically andinternationally that in the history of the world ourcountry alone bears war responsibility and is a criminalnation. This inevitably harms the honor of our nationand race (minzoku), desecrates our heroes who died forthe nation at its time of crisis, and will become agrave source of trouble for the future of our countryand people. We oppose this Diet Resolution and offerthe following petition. Your consideration isappreciated.

Petition

We strongly demand that the Diet uphold its conscienceas the institution possessing the highest authority inthe nation, and never adopt a resolution of "remorse"and "apology" that one-sidedly condemns our country'swar, as has been planned for the fiftieth anniversary ofthe war's end.

To: The Speaker of the House of Representatives TheChairman of the House of Councilors

Citizen's Movement Committee on the Fiftieth Anniversaryof the End of the War.

Return to article Document 3:

Editorial from Sankei Shimbun, June 7, 1995

A compromised proposal that lacks wisdom

We cannot judge history based on the resolution in theHouse of Representatives

(Translated by Tomomi Yamaguchi)

The three ruling parties compromised over the resolutionby the House on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversaryof the end of the war. Properly, this evaluation of thepast war should be judged objectively by the historiansof the future. However, as we typically see in anydecision- making processes in the House, it was decidedon a basis of compromise that takes the average of thetwo opposing positions. We have to claim that themaking of the resolution is a very insincere andpolitical deal, lacking a humble attitude towardhistory.

One's historical view is an issue of "thought" thatbelongs to an individual's very inner domain. Thus, wehave consistently been insisting that the House, whichis the institution possessing the highest power in thenation, should not offer standardized historicalevaluations or ethical value judgments on past history.We insist on this because the citizens of Japan do notassign to the House such an act that goes beyond itssupposed function as a legislature.

Even if supposedly we have to put some historicalconsiderations into the resolution, it is careless ofthe House to include such words as "acts of aggression"[shinryakuteki koÃ¯] or "colonial rule" [shokuminchishihai], without considering the multifaceted nature ofthe war (the belligerents, the area, the details abouthow the war was initiated, the content of the colonialrule), and the long history before the war.

Is it permissible for the House to impose a very facile"remorse" [hansei] upon future generations of Japanesecitizens, even though the resolution does not take thedata from existing empirical research into account, andthere are still many issues that we have to wait forhistorians to resolve?

The discussion in the House was centered on theexpressions such as "aggression" and "colonies." As aresult of negotiation and compromise by the LiberalDemocrats and the Socialists, these words came to haveequivocal and thus unclear meanings in the resolution.However, it could cause trouble for the future that thefair historical evaluation by the Liberal DemocraticParty -- which explains that it was inevitable for Japanto make a mistake in order to protect the security ofthe country given the situation of Asia at the time,which was being threatened by the Great Powers of theworld -- was forced to be changed by the Socialistparty.

At the same time, certainly we were able to avoid thearguments that make Japan out to be an absolute evil, orthat reject the value of wars for self- protection,because the naming of the resolution was changed to"Resolution to Renew the Determination for Peace on theBasis of Lessons Learned from History," and words like"apology" or "renunciation of war" were eliminated fromthe text.

However, any resolutions by the House, composed of therepresentatives of the people, are supposed to mean "theconsensus of the people." Can we really say that thecontent of the agreement by the three parties is "theconsensus of the people?" In fact, public opinion issplit. We also cannot ignore the importance ofmovements opposed to the resolution that blames Japan asan evil country, as we can see in the campaign that hasobtained signatures of five million people.

Moreover, the resolution lacks the basic condition thatshould be fulfilled in order to be established as aresolution by the House. The principle of resolution isunanimous agreement, but in fact, individual DietMembers have diverse opinions on the war. If diverseopinions of individual Diet Members are forced to beabsorbed into an party-level agreement in theresolution-making process, the "conscience" of theCongress people who are not willing to compromise iscompletely ignored. This process does not follow theprinciple of parliamentary democracy.

If it is compelling that there be a resolution of theDiet, it should be nothing other than a resolution whichexpresses sorrow to those Asians who died during thewar, and our resolve to contribute to the internationalcommunity as a nation of peace by a high level ofideological expression without stepping imprudently intointerpretations of history.

The essence of the compromise by the ruling parties isnothing but the maintenance of the coalition government.Although the so- called agreement by the three partiesdoes not contain words such as "aggression" and"colonies," the Liberal Democratic Party ended upaccepting the masochistic historical view of theSocialist Party that is obviously thinking only of itsown advantage, because the LDP is so attached to being aruling party.

The historical view of the Socialist Party is a veryextreme "anti-Japan historical view" that considers "allthe wars since the Sino-Japanese War [of 1894-5] as warsof aggression," and the post-war financial compensationand Overseas Developmental Aid (ODA) as only havingprofited Japanese corporations. Considering theessential nature of this party, this view is nothing butan "anti-national" ideology.

Through this compromise, the Liberal Democratic Partyactually "shared" the Socialist's viewpoint. Theconservatives are supposed to respect a balanced view ofhistory, pass down what they should from generation togeneration, and protect good traditional culture.However, the LDP's compromise means that they abandonedtheir responsibilities as conservatives and,emphatically, it is on this issue that their trueremorse should be expressed.

Furthermore, we think that the people may distrustpolitics more because politicians are mainly concernedwith preserving the coalition government and benefitingtheir own parties.

The focus from now on will move to the arrangement withthe New Frontier Party regarding the content of theresolution. However, there are Diet Members within theNew Frontier Party who oppose the very fact that theHouse is conducting an evaluation of history. Theirclaim is that we should avoid having the resolution bythe House, and that instead we should limit it to the"party declarations" proposed voluntarily by eachpolitical party.

Considering the current situation, we agree that this isthe most rational approach. We demand that politicsregain the proper wisdom that it has lost.

Return to article Document 4:

Editorial from Akahata, the newspaper of the JapaneseCommunist Party, June 8, 1995

Ruling Parties' "No-War Resolution" Draft Acquits War ofAggression

On the draft Diet resolution marking the 50thanniversary of the end of World War II, which was agreedon June 6 by the three ruling coalition parties, theJapanese commercial press has generally appreciated it,saying it includes such words as "aggression," "colonialrule" and "regret." But Akahata on June 8 rejects suchan evaluation, saying that the ruling coalition's draftresolution is far from reflecting the Japanesemilitarist war of aggression. In fact, the paper said,it acquits the war of aggression by arguing that boththe fascist and militarist states and the anti-fascistforces were to blame for World War II.

The draft resolution of the ruling parties describes theposition as though Japan's "colonial rule" and "acts ofaggression" were part of the general trend in "modernworld history." The draft makes neither a concretereference to nor a clear apology for Japan's colonialrule of Korea and Taiwan and the war of aggressionagainst China and the South East Asian countries, thoughthe draft expresses "deep regret" for "such acts" that"we carried out." On this basis it is natural that theAsian countries are criticizing the draft.

All the drafts of the Liberal Democratic Party, theSocial Democratic Party of Japan and Sakigake(Harbinger) had in common the attempt to rationalize thewar of aggression as a "confrontation between thepowers." The word "powers" is not used in the agreeddraft. But asked what the phrase "looking back at thevarious instances of colonial rule and acts ofaggression" means, SDPJ Secretary General Wataru Kuboadmitted on June 6 that "it is a historical fact thatthere were numerous instances of colonial rule and actsof aggression by the states which are described aspowers."

This clearly shows that the draft resolution of theruling parties was written to rationalize Japan's pastwar of aggression, just giving it as another example of"colonial rule and acts of aggression" by the powers.But World War II was a war in which Japan, Germany andItaly as the fascist and militarist states waged war ofaggression in Asia and Europe, and against this, manynations in the world formed an alliance against theiraggression and fascism. It was different in characterfrom wars "in modern world history" like World War I, inwhich the imperialist powers fought each other forcolonies and spheres of interest.

The draft by the ruling parties distorts thesehistorical facts by describing the position as thoughboth the aggressor states and the nations which foughtthem were to blame. It is necessary to make such anargument to make Japan's responsibility for the war ofaggression clear.

In addition, in the meeting of the ruling parties, theLiberal Democratic Party eulogized about theAsia-Pacific War launched by Japan, saying that it wasfor the "safety of our country." It is just the sameargument of "self-existence and self-defense" used bythe Tenno [Emperor] government and the military at thetime which advocated that "now the Empire, forself-existence and self-defense, must rise determinedlyto surmount all obstacles" (Pacific War ImperialProclamation).

The ruling coalition's position that both sides are toblame can lead to the conclusion that also the war ofaggression which Japan waged was necessary for"self-existence and self-defense" against the "colonialrule and acts of aggression" by the powers.

The draft Diet resolution of the three ruling coalitionparties only says that some nations in the world carriedout "colonial rule and acts of aggression." Furthermore,the passage, it must "go beyond our different historicalperceptions of the war," indicates that they think therecan be various ways of thinking about Japan's war. Thisdenies the historical fact that Japan initiated andwaged the war of aggression for the purpose of expandingits territory and extending its sphere of influence. Atthe same time, it shows that the three ruling parties donot even recognize that Japan played the role as one ofthe key initiators of World War II.

Japan's war of aggression cannot be described as"colonial rule and acts of aggression," nor can it berationalized as part of the general trend at the time.The war in Asia and the Pacific began with Japan'saggression in the North-Eastern Region of China (theManchurian Incident) in 1931, the purpose of which wasto completely resolve the situation in "Manchuria" andMongolia to make them Japanese territory, as SeishiroItagaki, the Japanese Kwantung army chief of staff, saidthat Japan could greatly increase its power when itdefinitely included China as part of its territory, andcould grasp the key for peace in the Orient and getready for the future battle for world conquest. Thisclearly shows that at the time Japan had the intentionto participate in the world war.

In the war started in 1941 against the United States,Britain and the Netherlands, Japan initiated an "OutlineAdministration in the Southern Occupied Lands" and whileexpanding the war it said that the purpose of theoccupation was to get immediately important resourcesfor national security to ensure self-sufficiency for theoperational troops.

Japan waged the war while at the same time it cruellyexploited and dominated by military force the people inAsia and the Pacific nations.

The ruling coalition parties' draft resolution iscriticized (by the British Broadcasting Corporation)because it weakens the recognition of Japan's criminalactions by saying that other powers did the same thingas Japan. To attempt to rationalize Japan's war ofaggression which has historically been defined as a warof aggression will only debase history and show contemptfor the people of Asia.

The war Japan started was undeniably a war of aggressionfrom both the historical and international point ofview. This is why the beginning of post-warinternational politics was based on deep reflectionabout the war of aggression and the acceptance ofJapan's guilt.

The Potsdam Declaration which Japan accepted says in itsArticle 6, "There must be eliminated for all time theauthority and influence of those who have deceived andmisled the people of Japan into embarking on worldconquest." Also, the decision of the InternationalMilitary Tribunal for the Far East which Japan acceptedin the San Francisco "Peace" Treaty pointed out that theattack Japan started on December 7, 1941 againstBritain, the United States of America and theNetherlands was a war of aggression.

The United Nations Charter at the same time says inArticle 53 that the Security Council "provided for...inregional arrangements directed against renewal ofaggressive policy on the part of any such (enemy)state."

Japan's post-war politics took a step forward when theJapanese people reflected on the war and "resolved thatnever again shall we be visited with the horrors of warthrough the action of our government." (Preamble,Japan's Constitution)

The draft resolution of the ruling parties denies thestarting point of post-war international politicsbecause it acquits those responsible for Japan's war ofaggression by saying that Japan's action was just partof the general trend in "modern world history."

Return to article

Document 5:

Japan Committee to Appeal for World Peace 1995 (IssuedMarch, 1995)

Proposal for an International Appeal for Global Peace onthe Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the End ofWorld War II

Fifty years are about to pass since the conclusion ofWorld War II, which brought unimaginable suffering topeoples throughout the world. The passage of months andyears that now amount to half a century compels us tomourn all of the war's victims, irrespective of whichside they were on during the war, and to renew ourresolution never to repeat the tragedy of war.

It is regrettable, however, that among the variousevents being planned throughout the world incommemoration of the 50th-year anniversary, there aresome that threaten to exacerbate mutual mistrust byemphasizing the differing position at the time of thewar. Forty years ago, in 1955, Bertrand Russell andAlbert Einstein warned that the elimination of war willremain difficult so long as our sense of common humanityremains ambiguous and abstract.

As individuals engaged in scholarly and culturalactivities in Japan, we believe it necessary to firstclearly promote self- reflection on Japan's warresponsibility in the Asia-Pacific War. Based on this,we then wish to present an international appeal thatclarifies common ground for working toward global peace.By obtaining the support of many people throughout theworld, it is our desire to turn this 50th-yearanniversary into an opportunity to strengtheninternational public opinion in support of world peace.

As a prelude to our proposal for international appeal,we offer the following reflections concerning Japan'swar responsibility:

First, it is obvious that the Asia-Pacific War beganwith the invasion of China, starting with the"Manchurian Incident" of September 1931, and subsequentmilitary invasion of Southeast Asian countries that wereEuropean and U.S. colonies. We recognize that apologyand compensation for damages to the Asian peoples whomwe victimized are necessary.

Second, at that time in Japan there was a tendency toregard the European and American colonial powers as"have" (as opposed to "have- not") countries, and todemand a redistribution of colonial possessions. Suchan attitude neglected the demands for nationalself-determination that had been on the rise since WorldWar I, however, and is anachronistic in thepost-World-War-II world. Keeping in mind the fact that1995 is also the 100th year since the conclusion of thefirst Sino-Japanese War, we believe self- reflection isnecessary concerning Japan's own colonial rule, whichstarted in Formosa (Taiwan) in 1895 and was extended toKorea in 1910.

Third, against a background of confrontation concerningJapan's aggression against China and Indochina, Japancommenced war against the Allied Powers in December 1941with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (while a noticeto terminate Japan-U.S. negotiations was delayed in theJapanese embassy), coupled with a military assault onthe Malay Peninsula. We give serious consideration tothe fact that these actions have caused prolonged U.S.distrust of Japan. If Japan is to take a position ofseeking peaceful solutions to disputes in today's world,we believe that it is more than ever necessary toclearly self-reflect upon our responsibility forstarting the war.

Fourth, heart-felt apology and self-reflection arenecessary concerning the mass slaughter of civilianssymbolized by the "Nanjing Massacre," as well as theatrocious treatment of Allied prisoners of war andcivilian captives such as took place in the "BataanDeath March." The Asia-Pacific War, which causedenormous suffering in neighboring countries, also wasaccompanied by indescribable sacrifices on the part ofthe Japanese people, as symbolized by Hiroshima andNagasaki. As a result, a common consciousness of "nomore war" became widespread in post-defeat Japan, andthe country chose the path of concentrating on economicrecovery while avoiding foreign disputes as much aspossible.

As a result, until quite recently Japanese have tendedto emphasize their own victimization while neglectingtheir role as victimizers who brought enormous sufferingto foreigners and foreign countries. That is, it cannotbe denied that peace consciousness in post-war Japan hashad the limitation of being self-centered. This can beseen, for example, in the fact that post-war governmentcompensation policies for individual war victims appliedonly to Japanese.

In the 1990s, however, problems such as the "militarycomfort women" became widely known and Japanese publicopinion in support of apologizing to foreign war victimsand providing compensation to them has risenconspicuously. Also, in recent years local publicpeace-memorial centers such as those in Hiroshima andOkinawa have begun to address not only Japanesesuffering but also the suffering of non-Japanese. Inthis 50th year since Japan's defeat, we recognize thatit is necessary to strengthen this trend whereby peaceconsciousness transcends the boundaries of "one-country"preoccupation.

Thus, on this historically important juncture of thefiftieth anniversary of Japan's defeat, we urge theJapanese government and Diet to carry out the followingfive-part agenda:

By August 15, 1995, officially do the following: clearlyarticulate the government's self-reflection on Japan'sresponsibility for past colonial rule as well as theAsia-Pacific War, which caused enormous suffering bothoutside and within the country; express renewedresolution to uphold Article Nine of the Constitutionand never invade the territory of other countries;resolve to act as a thoroughly peaceful nation by takingthe initiative to work for peaceful dispute resolutionand armaments reduction in the future.

Make efforts to make the miserable realities of the warknown to the world by, first, releasing to the publicall official documents and pertinent materials possessedby the Japanese side, and second, assisting in theidentification and maintenance of materials pertainingto war damages in other countries, especially in Asia.

Set up appropriate mechanisms within the government andDiet to quickly investigate war damages to foreigners;apologize to such confirmed victims, and provide earlycompensation to them; quickly take measures to alsoestablish national compensation to Japanese civilian warvictims who have been neglected up to now, such asvictims of conventional air raids as well as atomicbombs.

To ensure that younger generations without warexperience will possess accurate historicalconsciousness, make efforts to provide historicaleducation concerning the Asia-Pacific War based on soundscholarship; also, in constructing memorial facilitiessuch as the presently contemplated "Peace Prayer Hall,"always include exhibits dealing with the causes andrealities of suffering in foreign countries.

Make widely known to the world the terrible humanexperience of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic-bombvictims, and also the realities of survivors of postwarnuclear experiments such as in the Bikini Incident of1954. At the same time, with the ultimate end in viewof prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons byinternational law and attaining the early abolishment ofnuclear arsenals, take the lead by passing legislationaffirming Japan's "three non-nuclear principles"(prohibiting the production or possession of nuclearweapons, or their being brought into Japan by anothercountry).

With the understanding that we ourselves will engage inself-reflection on Japan's war responsibility, and willpresent the above concrete proposals to the Japanesegovernment and Diet, we offer the International Appealfor Peace that is presented separately here.

International Appeal for Global Peace on the Occasion ofthe Fiftieth Anniversary of the End of World War II

It soon will be 50 years since the end of World War II,which caused enormous suffering to peoples throughoutthe world. We believe that this fiftieth anniversaryshould not be observed in ways that reinforce the enmityand mistrust associated with different positions duringthe war. Rather, it should be commemorated in a mannerthat turns the tragic war experience in the direction ofbuilding future peace for humanity. With this in mind,we propose the following eight principles:

Upon the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end ofthe war, we pledge that, once having clearly establishedthe responsibility of the Axis countries that startedthe war, we will mourn all war victims irrespective ofnationality or race and make efforts to ensure that suchenormous sacrifices will never be repeated.

We take seriously the fact that even today, after 50years, many questions remain concerning accurate numbersof war victims and the actual extent of war damages.Thus, we urge the countries involved to continue toinvestigate these matters and release pertinentinformation both domestically and internationally.

We also take note of the fact that there still remainwar victims who even to the present day have notreceived appropriate apologies and just compensation. Wethus request that the former Axis countries involvedinvestigate these matters and hasten to extend apologiesand compensation for individual damages that areconfirmed.

Recalling that one of the cause of the war was mutualmistrust among the various countries, we consider itimportant to promote international exchanges concerninghistorical education and the like, with the ultimateobjective of promoting mutual trust as well as educationfor peace and human rights in all countries.

In making available materials that show the realities ofwar suffering and damages, we believe that suchpresentations should reflect sound scholarship. At thesame time, efforts should be made to enlarge the commonground of historical perception by mutually exchangingmaterials and information even when positions during thewar may have been antagonistic. In particular, in thecase of the Asia-Pacific theater, more exhibitions wouldbe held in Japan to publicize atrocities againstforeigners symbolized by such incidents as the "NanjingMassacre" and "Bataan Death March." In the UnitedStates, exhibitions depicting such matters as theatomic- bomb damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should bepromoted.

Keeping in mind that the war marked the final defeat offascism, we think it important to reaffirm the value offreedom, human rights, and democracy for all people, andto commit ourselves to eliminate discrimination based onrace, nationality, religion, or gender.

We give serious consideration to the fact that in thefinal stage of the war atomic bombs were used for thefirst time in history, victimizing many non-combatantsand symbolically inaugurating a nuclear era in which thevery existence of humanity is imperiled. We deem itnecessary to increase recognition of the inhumanity ofnuclear weapons and work for their abolishment.

To turn the lessons of the tragic war in the directionof future world peace, it is our hope that each nation,taking advantage of organization such as the UnitedNations, energetically pursues ways to peacefullyresolve disputes while, at the same time, making effortsto overcome the poverty and environmental destructionthat tend to give rise to conflict.

It is our hope that many people, irrespective ornationality or race, will support these eight principlesand make efforts to realize them in their own country.In working for a lasting peace for all humanity, webelieve it is important to mutually understand thedifferent meanings of peace consciousness that may existamong different peoples. Thus, in addition tosoliciting your support of this appeal, we also welcomeyour comments.

[Signatures of 35 Japanese university professors]

Return to article

Document 6:

Statement with the signatures of 137 well-knownacademics and public figures, handed over to PrimeMinister Tomiichi Murayama on June 30, 1995

We Urge the Japanese Government to Make Compensationwithout Further Delay

The colonial domination and the war of aggressionperpetrated by Imperial Japan left an enormous number ofpeople in Asia, particularly on the Korean Peninsula andin China, still suffering from incurable wounds of mindand body. However diverse may be the views on historyheld by Japanese, no one can deny the unmistakablepresence of these victimized people.

Among such victims are the former "comfort women" andthe forcibly drafted Asian workers, who were enslaved bythe Japanese state in complete violation of theirdignity as human beings, and compulsorily subject tounbearable torment and humiliation. It is self-evidentthat they are entitled to compensation by the Japanesestate.

Through a critical self-examination of the lastmilitarist war, Japan in the post-war period has beenstriving to be reborn as a democratic nation based onthe idea of universal human rights. As stated in theConstitution, democracy is "a universal principle ofhumankind," and universal human rights should berespected regardless of the difference in nationality.Compensation by the Japanese state for the graveinfringements on human rights committed by it againstAsian peoples could, therefore, stand as its testimonybefore world public opinion that it has transformeditself from militarism into a democracy.

Nevertheless, no compensatory measures for thesevictimized individuals have been taken by the Japanesegovernment up to the present. On the occasion of thefiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II, we urgethe government to fulfill its responsibility at least tothese two categories of people, even though there areother victims as well. No further delay is permissiblein view of the aging of these people.

If the government decides to make compensation to theseindividuals in the name of the Japanese state, we, ascitizens of Japan, will be willing to cooperate bysoliciting private contributions. We do not support the"Asian Peace and Friendship Fund for Women" recentlypublicized by the government, however, because it isintended to replace state indemnities by privatedonations. This is a formula which is utterlyinappropriate and is bound to fail to meet the claim ofthe victims.

Knowing that even state compensation will be far fromsufficient to cure the profound wounds inflicted onthese people, we sincerely seek their forgiveness,hoping that the state compensation will serve as a tokenof our apologies. At the same time, we must confessthat we are deeply ashamed of the persistent evasion ofwar responsibility committed by the governments and theDiet.

Standing at a crossroads of historic significance 50years after the end of World War II, we urge theJapanese government to express an unequivocal apologyand take concrete steps towards making due compensationto the victimized people so that the Japanese peoplemay, in the words of the Constitution, "occupy anhonored place in international society."

Return to article

Document 7

Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama

The world has seen 50 years elapse since the war came toan end. Now, when I remember the many people both athome and abroad who fell victim to war, my heart isoverwhelmed by a flood of emotions.

The peace and prosperity of today were built as Japanovercame great difficulty to arise from a devastatedland after defeat in war. That achievement is somethingof which we are proud, and let me herein express myheartfelt admiration for the wisdom and untiring effortof each and every one of our citizens. Let me alsoexpress once again my profound gratitude for theindispensable support and assistance extended to Japanby the countries of the world, beginning with the UnitedStates of America. I am also delighted that we havebeen able to build the friendly relations which we enjoytoday with the neighboring countries of the Asia-Pacificregion, the United States and the countries of Europe.

Now that Japan has come to enjoy peace and abundance, wetend to overlook the pricelessness and blessings ofpeace. Our task is to convey to younger generations thehorrors of war, so that we never repeat the errors inour history. I believe that, as we join hands,especially with the peoples of neighboring countries, toensure true peace in the Asia- Pacific region -- indeedin the entire world -- it is necessary, more thananything else, that we foster relations with allcountries based on deep understanding and trust. Guidedby this conviction, the Government has launched thePeace, Friendship and Exchange Initiative, whichconsists of two parts promoting: support for historicalresearch into relations in the modern era between Japanand the neighboring countries of Asia and elsewhere; andrapid expansion of exchanges with those countries.Furthermore, I will continue in all sincerity to do myutmost in efforts being made on the issues arisen fromthe war, in order to further strengthen the relations oftrust between Japan and those countries.

Now, upon this historic occasion of the 50th anniversaryof the war's end, we should bear in mind that we mustlook into the past to learn from the lessons of history,and ensure that we do not stray from the path to thepeace and prosperity of human society in the future.

During a certain period in the not too distant past,Japan, following a mistaken national policy, advancedalong the road to war, only to ensnare the Japanesepeople in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonialrule and aggression, caused tremendous damage andsuffering to the people of many countries, particularlyto those of Asian nations. In the hope that no suchmistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit ofhumility, these irrefutable facts of history, andexpress here once again my feelings of deep remorse andstate my heartfelt apology. Allow me also to express myfeelings of profound mourning for all victims, both athome and abroad, of that history.

Building from our deep remorse on this occasion of the50th anniversary of the end of the war, Japan musteliminate self-righteous nationalism, promoteinternational coordination as a responsible member ofthe international community and, thereby, advance theprinciples of peace and democracy. At the same time, asthe only country to have experienced the devastation ofatomic bombing, Japan, with a view to the ultimateelimination of nuclear weapons, must actively strive tofurther global disarmament in areas such as thestrengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.It is my conviction that in this way alone can Japanatone for its past and lay to rest the spirits of thosewho perished.

It is said that one can rely on good faith. And so, atthis time of remembrance, I declare to the people ofJapan and abroad my intention to make good faith thefoundation of our Government policy, and this is my vow.